That ship has sailed, so, I doubt it. With minor exceptions (Time Vault comes to mind), once they've made a decision, they stick with it; barring a decision that something is "bad for business." WotC is, after all, a business.Originally Posted by rsaunder
If you have their research that proves this, we would love to see it.
Ditto on this, which seems like a very specific set of conditions. My hunch is that their decisions are based on market data they correct directly, tournament analysis they do in-house, plus a certain amount of intuition (that, I feel, they're entitled to).What players hate is not getting to play a turn of magic AND not being able to beat that deck no matter what they do. It just so happens that, more often than not, that correlates with combo.
I'm pretty sure that, in the end, their conditions for banning cards, setting power level, etc. are focused on having a skill-oriented game (with the right amount of variance) that encourages people to play their game and buy their product. People play/buy games that are "fun," because that's what games are for. When things become "unfun," (i.e. not properly skill testing / not enough variance; people not playing their game / buying their product) that when the pliers are blowtorch are brought out.
While I don't want to enter in other points, that's not true. The DCI acts when a combo deck is too resilient, regardless of speed. Pro-bloom in Mirage cycle took about 4 turns to win, Rec-survival was a slow deck. However, there was no effective answer to the engine cards in such environment, at least, no effective answer that these decks couldn't use, hence why the combo decks became TOP decks. Speedy versions of combos like Hulk Flash (turn-0 win lol) have been traditionally less resilient as their slow turn-3 win cousins, which are the ones that end dominating.
As I said in the B&R thread right after the GP:
Also, later in the thread people were suggesting (three months before DCI acted) that Mystical Tutor would get the axe for making combo/reanimator too strong.
Please stop talking about whether Force of Will is broken or not. It obviously is, and rather than "the glue that holds vintage together" it would be better to call it "the rug under which you hide the filth until there's so much that you can no longer conceal it".
Interesting -- but I think this proves my point here, which is that "The DCI almost never just kills combo to kill combo." And, the corallary point, that "What players hate is not getting to play a turn of magic AND not being able to beat that deck no matter what they do. It just so happens that, more often than not, that correlates with combo. " Instead of 'and,' I perhaps should have used the term, "or." But I also could have added the point that sometimes this isn't just combo decks. They restricted Trinisphere in Vintage because of those factors.
Exactly -- it's not just that the combo deck exists, and that is sufficient to kill it, but that the deck is actually good/tournmant winner, in this case. That's why Belcher exists and has been allowed to exist in Legacy since the inception of the format. If a turn one combo deck existed in the format, but it could never win an actual match of Magic, there would be no need to ban it.Rec-survival was a slow deck. However, there was no effective answer to the engine cards in such environment, at least, no effective answer that these decks couldn't use, hence why the combo decks became TOP decks.
Ironically, just as people create stereotypes about combo, there are also stereotypes about combo and DCI policy. If we look beyond anecdotal data, no clear and consistent pattern -- let alone the 'overwhelming evidence,' as IBA suggests, supports the notion that the DCI will nerf combo when its not a top deck.
Rather, the DCI nerfs decks for a variety of reasons. The most obvious reason it bans and restricts is because of tournament dominance. When a deck can't be reliably beaten in a particular format, decks are restricted/banned. This is true whether the deck is a combo deck or not. Fact or Fiction in Vintage control is a good non-combo example of this. Another reason that recurs throughout the history of the banned and restricted list is a concern over time/match length. The DCI restricted Ivory Tower, Icy Manipulator, Maze of Ith, Zuran Orb, and banned Shahrazad in the 1990s for creating "exceptionally long games." Notably, this rational is not restrictred to the 1990s. That same rationale was employed for banning Sensei's Top in Extended and Gifts Ungiven in Vintage in the past decade, and the renewed banning of Shahrazad two years ago. That remains a serious concern of the DCI. The other major reason they ban or restrict is a concern over turn one and turn two kills, whether it's combo or not. For example, the DCI restricted Trinisphere and Flash in Vintage for exactly the same reason: they weren't tournament dominant, but they created too many turn one and turn two wins (this reasoning was explicit in both instances). That's the main reason that the DCI nerfs combo. In almost every other instance, it's because of the first reason: the deck is tournamnent dominant. It just so happens that third reason tends to most often correllate with combo. The first reason only occassionaly does, and that remains the primary reason the DCI bans and restricts.
When you look comprehensively -- and not anecdotally -- at cards that have been restricted or banned -- the overwhelming evidence does not support the idea that the DCI will nerf combo just to nerf combo. Instead, it will nerf combo because 1) it's a dominant deck and/or 2) it produces too many turn one or two kills.
I agree with this. But taking it a step further, why?
The DCI also has an history of "nerfing" bad combo decks by changing the rules of the game.
Examples:
1. The wall of roots in-between-turns manaramp decks
2. The Hunted Horror + Brand combo deck
3. The Mirror Universe combo decks.
4. The ANT trick of breaking Lion's Eye Diamond in the draw step also counts as a 'nerf'.
5. The banning of Illusionary Mask, and later unbanning after changing its wording.
So add to your theory that wizards also bans/nerf combo decks when they are not intuitive. Some people could see that as nerfing combo for the sake of doing it, though.
Please stop talking about whether Force of Will is broken or not. It obviously is, and rather than "the glue that holds vintage together" it would be better to call it "the rug under which you hide the filth until there's so much that you can no longer conceal it".
Implementations of the fun principle.
In the first instance, it's because they have a general principle of restricting/banning cards that are components of dominant decks. Dominent decks are archetypes that dominant tournaments over long periods of time, despite attempts to combat them through metagame shifts and new printings. Most players agree that dominant decks are unfun, and that metagames throttled by a single or few archetypes are unfun. This is the collary to the diversity principle, that players prefer diverse formats.
In the second instance, it's another implementation of the fun principle, that, although players prefer diverse formats, they prefer less diversity if it means being able to play cards/spells. Thus, both Trinisphere and Flash were explicitly restricted in Vintage on the principle that -- although these cards aren't dominanting tournaments -- they didn't give players an opportunity to play spells enough of the time.
Ironically, Mystical Tutor's primary purpose was setting up turn 2 kills.
Suddenly, Fluffy realized she wasn't quite like the other bunnies anymore.
-Team R&D-
-noitcelfeR maeT-
I can agree with the fun principle. I recently played against Belcher in a DE, over two games I played one land. That was it. I know belcher pretty much auto-loses to blue, and to itself a reasonable amount of time, and its horribly inconsistent and in the grand scheme of things is a fair deck. But that match really sucked. Even knowing all that, I felt like, wow, what was the point of that? I just put all this work and effort into my deck, and I literally got to play one land over the course of an entire match. Yay. Thanks for wasting my money WoTC.
I think this is what WotC hates about "unfun/unfair" strategies. It makes people feel like they've wasted their time even playing the game, and that reduces consumption, which reduces profits, which makes shareholders a bunch of sad pandas.
*As a preemptive note, I think Belcher is a completely fair deck, and not a particularly good one at that, dude just had a pair of god hands, and I wasn't playing a deck with FoW, so, ggs. It happens, I'm over it, please spare us all the rant about "noobs dont like losing to combo lolkthxbai."
Which is exactly why it was banned. Anyone whom isn't grasping at straws to declare the banning of their pet card as "unreasonable" can see that the banning needed to happen. As Jack pointed out Mystical Tutor meets all of the same criteria that many other cards on the banned list meet and should rightfully join those cards on the banned list.
Right, it's all about the fun. If we go back to the banning of Trinisphere in Vintage 5+ years ago, we see the same principle in action:
"Now that [Trinisphere] has been floating around for a while, the Vintage crowd understands that the card does good things for the format, and bad things to the format. While it does serve a role of keeping combo decks in check, it also randomly destroys people on turn one, with little recourse other than Force of Will. And those games end up labeled with that heinous word—unfun. Not just “I lost” unfun, but “Why did I even come here to play?” unfun." -- Aaron Forsythe
(On this point, the entire exposition about Affinity getting the hammer should also be read. The part about Trinisphere is an extension on the "unfun" problem (attempting to be solved).)
People like to gripe about the lack of consistency and transparency of their decision-making and overall, it's a delicate balance. On the one hand you want to say enough about why you made a decision to inspire some degree in confidence and understanding in your process that you're making a decision For the Right Reason(s). On the other hand, if you say too much or publish an elaborate set of criteria for how you make decisions, you're putting yourself into a corner and setting yourself up to have your words used against you in the future for "not being consistent," etc. I see that in my industry as well. In any kind of complex system, you need a decision-making process that is flexible -- unless you've established an expectation that public participation will be used (to whatever degree) to solve problems.
Kinda got sidetracked there. Pardon.
In the end, it's all about the fun. And trying to understand fun is not a 2+2 sort of activity.
I just want to bold a different part of Aaron's Statement.
So, it seems it's a combination of speed and resiliency.
Please stop talking about whether Force of Will is broken or not. It obviously is, and rather than "the glue that holds vintage together" it would be better to call it "the rug under which you hide the filth until there's so much that you can no longer conceal it".
I think it has more to do with not being able enjoy the game to a meaningful degree. (See that whole section on Affinity in that article)
Speed is obviously a factor. Like if there was some combo deck that killed you on turn ten 100% of the time; at least you had 5 turns to play the game. If it kills you on turn 1 some unreasonable % of the time, you didn't play the game. You didn't go to the tournament just to shuffle your cards and make mulligan decisions, you know?
But, but, but, that's why I play Belcher...
"Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted." - John Lennon
Except that Ad Nauseam decks were legal for almost two years without a banning, and Epic Storm and Iggy Pop decks, which are just as fast, were legal long before that. In short, we've had turn two storm combo in Legacy now since the format's inception. If the purpose of banning Mystical Tutor was to stop a turn two combo deck, then it doesn't seem particularly well tailored to that end. It's obvious that this is not just about or even primarily about turn two combo decks like ANT, but also about Reanimator. Which means that the proximate event is the unbanning of Entomb.
$10 says the turning point was GP Madrid and two different Mystical Tutor-powered combo decks being in the finals. That, I think, validated their long-held but unpublished idea that Mystical Tutor was actually a tier 1 tutor (like Vampiric) and not a tier 2 tutor (like Enlightened or Worldly). This is supported by something La Pille said in his article explaining the ban, backed up by something Zac Hill (an R&D intern now) posted in the discussion thread for this article.
Whether or not you agree with them isn't the point. I'm wanting to point out what I think was their Moment of Truth.
I do. You need to look at combo from the combo players perspective. We enjoy unlocking puzzles and executing a beautiful, lethal, spell chain, while you sit there shivering. :D
We don't enjoy smashing face. Any layman can turn his dudes sideways.
Belcher doesn't fall into this category because its easy to play.
Luck is a residue of design.
I'm an aspiring Psychedelic Trance musician. Please feel free to enjoy my sense of life:
http://soundcloud.com/vacrix
Expect me or die. I play SI.
Yeah, I'm not arguing my point of view, just playing devil's advocate here. I think everyone would agree that combo has, should and will continue to be a factor in the metagame. The question on the DCI's mind is "how much of a factor should it play?" Looking at the obvious bias in the banned list and their last announcement (Mystical) their answer seems to be an emphatic "not so much."
Personally, I'm fine with that. The game was designed to be interactive and I find it to be the most "fun" when it is. I don't begrudge people that love playing combo from doing what they do; but my heart doesn't bleed when combo loses some of its mojo.
The ban was long overdue no doubt about it. Also the banning wont "kill" Ad Nauseam decks; it will just force them to actually play the decks namesake instead of tutoring for the 1-2 copies they are packing in their deck. Also other storm combo decks we have seen in the format all the way back to it's inception when Solidarity was the champ did not have both the speed and consistency that Ad Nauseam decks did; if they did those decks would still be played instead of being largely replaced by Ad Nauseam.
I don't know why everyone is still going on about this. Combo sucks to play against, always has. Sure, some of us find it a challenge, but for the most part people whine and whine about it. Let's so for sake of theory that Belcher became 80% consistent. Would you complain? It's already winning games on turn 1. Let's just say it gets some dumb card that just happens to remedy it's Force of Will problem, but not be a broken card.
Could you still call it part of the meta? Could you fight for it's right to stick in the format or go toward everyone's side of ban this or that? To be honest, it's amazing that deck is still around since it's even less fun to play against than Tendrils ever was. At least Tendrils gives you a couple of turns to try and stop it. I don't blame Wizards and the DCI at all for banning the tutor, but I surely think they should just admit mistakes and ban the things that really caused the problems in the first place instead of beating around the bush so bad.
It has been ten years. Tom Lapille made many more mistakes and got fired. And, Legacy is dead. I doubt any of them cared about an Eternal format's future, to be honest.
But, I do think it's true that there was some kind of emotionally-based drive to alter the "new player experience," which unsurprisingly had a negative effect on most non-new players. Two decades as a subsidiary has taken its toll on the quality and character of the game. I'm not sure what Aaron's current role is, but the philosophy he expresses in this interview and other places is clearly visible in the degradation of the brand from the alluring 80s-era D&D world to whatever kind of woke pre-teen cartoon drama it has become. Not only did the rules get mangled, but the world and history of the game got mangled too.
I was already a critic of the DCI, and R&D, starting from right around the time that they first ruined the card frame, for many reasons. After I stopped writing, I learned more about the business of WotC and the predictable, obvious corporate and branding decisions that led to all of the sad changes to Magic in the past 15 years. The management restructuring of 2008 led directly to all of the gross flavor and design themes that replaced the things that were actually interesting about the product before. The grim pathway to commoditiziation was inevitable once the product's future was in the hands of a multinational conglomerate, the first time business didn't boom.
I do not think the New Player Experience fanatics should have stuck their noses in Eternal formats. It's a shame they decided to interfere, because Legacy could have thrived and lasted with support from TOs, forums, and online stores. The zealots errata'd so many cards for no reason. Totally non-supported 93/94 exists for some players, with obvious appeal. Legacy did not make WotC much money (in fact the reserved lists, as long as they are respected, might even lose them money), but it generated goodwill and reputation. Eternal underpinned the existence of the secondary market, which gave credibility to WotC fiat through integrity and reputation. It could have been left untouched, as a relic with a separate class of customer. Now, I honestly believe this golden goose will be killed once digital Magic dominates the paper version.
In this article, and others, I hinted at the ulterior motives of DCI members, but I never had any proof of what they were doing, just my instincts. I wasn't just criticizing bannings and unbannings; I could tell game was being managed improperly. I said as much I could say without my articles being edited or censored.
I still believe banning Mystical was a mistake. And, I still think I could write a better B/R list than the current one, even though I'd have to throw out 15 years of rules changes, too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote